Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1022 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivajee Singh Sisodiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Mr. Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
It is agreed that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Writ-A No. 27676 of 2018 (Shiv Dutt Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) today by which writ petition was dismissed by passing following orders-.
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 with roll no.as 0114322755 forthwith or within a stipulated period as fixed by this Court.
The facts as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed B.Ed examination in the year 2008 from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, in first division. Thereafter petitioner appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test, 2018 conducted by the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, Allenganj, Prayagraj. In this regard the petitioner submitted online applications form and role number was also allotted to the petitioner. The examinations were held on 18.11.2018. The petitioner duly appeared in the aforesaid examination. It is contended in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that although the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination but due to mistake committed by the petitioner he could not marked the OMR sheet and booklet series allotted to him and as such column of series which was required to be filled up by the petitioner was left unmarked hence the result was not declared. The identical controversy has already been decided in Writ A No.26173 of 2018, Rajesh Kumar Yadav and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. In the aforesaid writ petition giving cogent reasons this Court was pleased to dismiss the same.
The law in this connection is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. reported at AIR 1992 SC 952. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. It was held that the instructions contained in the answer-sheet should be complied with in its letter and spirit. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-
"Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true."
In view of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioner so far as the present writ petition is concerned.
The writ petition is dismissed."
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 saqlain